Senate hearing on SB298 pits police unions’ push to limit arbitrator inferences against county objections

Senators on the Senate Committee on Government Affairs heard testimony on Senate Bill 298 on Thursday, a bill addressing how arbitrators may interpret gaps or silence in collective bargaining agreements and adding a definition of “punitive action” that would include denial of increases in seniority or compensation.

Senator Skip Dailey presented the amendment and said the measure grew out of a request to address how fact-finders handle situations not expressly covered by a contract. “There are any number of things, thousands of potential things that are not specifically covered in collective bargaining agreement that come up during arbitration,” Dailey said, arguing a statutory rule would let arbitrators make reasoned decisions without penalizing the party that drafted the contract language.

Supporters included the Police Managers and Supervisors Association (PMSA) and several law-enforcement unions. Troyce Krumme, PMSA chairman, told senators that traditional contract interpretation “states that the term should be construed against the drafter,” and said the bill would “prohibit the fact finder or an arbitrator from drawing an inference that benefits either side.” He said the change would encourage parties to negotiate when ambiguity arises and avoid repeated litigation over issues that negotiators simply did not foresee.

PMSA’s general counsel, Dan Coe, said the measure also seeks to define punitive action to include denial of an increase in seniority or compensation, pointing to a case in which a member’s negotiated step increase was withheld during an administrative investigation and the member later faced a demotion. Coe argued the member suffered multiple punishments for the same circumstances — withheld step increase, demotion and loss of pay tied to rank — and should have stronger statutory protections.

Opponents included the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department labor relations counsel, who argued the bill would rewrite mandatory subjects of bargaining and potentially infringe on the Employee-Management Relations Board (EMRB) jurisdiction. Jamie Frost, labor relations counsel for LVMPD, said the proposal amounts to imposing a negotiated outcome across every public employee contract because pay and promotions are routine subjects of bargaining. “There is no right in which an employee is entitled to an increase in pay,” Frost said, and she warned that the bill could require additional hearings for probationary employees or employees accused of serious misconduct while the employer is determining disciplinary action.

Committee legal counsel clarified an effective-date question: when a bill contains no specific effective date, it becomes effective Oct. 1 of the current year. Heidi Clarkson explained that if enacted without an alternative effective date, parts of SB298 would take effect Oct. 1, 2025.

Supporters including the Las Vegas Police Protective Association, Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers, and Washoe County Sheriff Deputies Association also spoke in favor; callers and union representatives emphasized the change would protect employees from compounded penalties.

Opponents argued the change would intrude on negotiated bargaining rights, could increase litigation and risk giving employees rights to pay or seniority increases that are a matter of bargaining rather than statute. The committee closed the hearing with senators saying conversations would continue; no committee vote appears in the hearing record provided.